|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does God Really Exist??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cthulhu Member (Idle past 5852 days) Posts: 273 From: Roe Dyelin Joined: |
I originally responded to this post:
Yes Alexander Fleming did invent penicillin, but who invented Alexander Fleming??? Who gave him the knowledge, who allowed him to be born, who gave him the breathe of life? GOD Could you kindly point out the "Let's suppose" in this? And you have yet to explain why that is not circular reasoning. In fact, you have not even acknowledged that my point that it is circular reasoning even exists. Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Thanks! As for God caring... he might well care, if he does in fact exist. But as I've said before... telling me that God cares is a little like telling me that in a parallel universe, I'm in a polygamous marriage with Eliza Dushku, Angelina Jolie, and the girl who plays Chloe on Smallville. Good to know. Kinda nice, even. But it doesn't really impact on my life, now does it? "Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river." -Anya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CreationMan Inactive Member |
Thanks Admin Brian, I really appreciate your input. With all due respect, however, I think I can handle these guys.
"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" Creation Man
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CreationMan Inactive Member |
Look when I said "let's suppose" I was reffering to something completely different and to a different member.
Secondly, My point is this. You say that we cannot prove Scientifically that God Exists, so why DO we believe in him? True, we cannot PROVE that God does exist. But by that same virtue, we cannot prove Scientifically that God does NOT exist. So why DON'T you believe in him. There is far more scientific evidence to weigh in support of there being a God than not. That is my point. Welcome Phatboy, it is good to have you here. BTW Dan, I agree with Phatboy, your wit is entertaining. It is actually fun to converse with you (which is a lot more than I can say for most of the other members on this forum). "The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" Creation Man
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You say that we cannot prove Scientifically that God Exists, so why DO we believe in him? True, we cannot PROVE that God does exist. But by that same virtue, we cannot prove Scientifically that God does NOT exist. So why DON'T you believe in him. There is far more scientific evidence to weigh in support of there being a God than not. That is my point.
You manage to contradict yourself. There isn't any evidence that God doesn't exist, that's true. (If you are careful to describe God correctly, anyway). There is also no way to prove that kind of God exists either. As you appear to agree. There is no evidence against God, there is no evidence for God either. There is not "far more" evidence. There is no evidence one way or the other. Those who choose to believe do so based on faith, not evidence. Others choose to limit what they believe solely on faith. If faith is all that is needed. I can believe in anything. Anything at all. Why should I choose your particular definition of God to believe in?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: And I think this is where you're not getting it, CM. We have yet to see this scientific evidence in support of there being a God. Please present it if it's there. From where I'm standing though, there's no evidence one way or the other. So as far as what's in front of me, I see no God. Sure, there could be one. I guess. And sure, despite there being no evidence one way or the other, there could also be a giant robot juggling planets somewhere on the other side of the galaxy. I guess. And... so? The possibility of there being a God is about as likely to me as there being a giant planet-juggling robot somewhere out near Trafalmadore... and has about as much relevance to my life.
quote: Thanks to you too! "Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river." -Anya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
CreationMan writes:
Such as? There is far more scientific evidence to weigh in support of there being a God than not. ADDED IN EDIT:
So why DON'T you believe in him.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence that might warrant belief in his existence. It's the same reason I don't believe in gremlins, djinns, the tatzelwurm, the loch ness monster, the chupacabra, etc... [This message has been edited by ::, 02-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
::
Give us a definition by which we can identify evidence as scientific or not, so we know how to answer your question. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
Scientific evidence is that which is collected via methodological naturalism, i.e. it is a confirmed prediction of a scientific hypothesis that is repeatably testable/observable and falsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
::
Does Del Washburn's Theomatics qualify? Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
Which independant institute has repeated his observations?
Which similar-in-length non-biblical texts were analyzed for control? On what basis did Washburn select the texts to analyze out of the many different versions in existence? No original copy of any book in the Bible has survived, so how do we know that his selections are valid? After all that, how do we know this is not the work of Loki, the trickster god who desires to lead credulous Christians astray? [This message has been edited by ::, 02-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
::
Which independant institute has repeated his observations? None that I know of, but they could. Wasn't it repeatable, not repeated, that was the standard?
Which similar-in-length non-biblical texts were analyzed for control? It will take me a while to find the site, which is posted somewhere in this forum, where the study of repeating Theomatic tests on a control text failed to generate results. I think Washburn also did this.
On what basis did Washburn select the texts to analyze out of the many different versions in existence? No original copy of any book in the Bible has survived, so how do we know that his selections are valid? Don't know offhand. To find any version that retained the statistical patterns proves that such patterns exist in a document that God supposedly wrote and supposedly is currently protecting from historical loss.
After all that, how do we know this is not the work of Loki, the trickster god who desires to lead credulous Christians astray? Any scientific evidence for such an ad hoc notion? What do you do with the several prayer studies that found statistically significant results? Admittedly irregularly replicated, but methodologies have varied, too, so ....Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CreationMan Inactive Member |
Hey Stephen! Good to have you here.
Don't worry guys I'm not forgetting about you or your replies. I will be responding tomorrow when I have time... .....and I'll bring the evidence for God with me. "The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" Creation Man
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6696 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
Where'd you get malaria from?
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6696 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
Test page
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024